Rival Groups Challenge Uptown and La Jolla CPGs
By Mat Wahlstrom
Today — Thursday, March 21 — at 1:00PM, the City Council’s Land Use and Housing Committee will vote to recommend which community planning group (CPG) will better represent the planning areas of La Jolla and Uptown: those currently elected, or those vetted for appointment by the mayor.
This represents the culmination of a years-long effort to paint elected CPGs as not representative of their communities by virtue of the fact that the people elected can’t be counted on to toe an ideological line.
Much like a shell game, in which an object is hidden under a number of covers which are shuffled around, the existing CPGs have been repeatedly tasked to guess how to meet first this qualification or that operating procedure. And just like a shell game, the mark is never right and the ringer in the audience who is clued in gets the right answer. It is a confidence trick rigged to perpetrate fraud — with the residents of San Diego the victims.
It hasn’t mattered how many times the motives behind CPG reform have been exposed as false or how the criteria for what the city means by “diverse representation” have been exposed as pro-developer conformity. Yet we have still been engaging in good faith in a bad faith effort, to prevent the evisceration of our most local level of democratic representation.
The broad outlines have been described and decried on this site and others, so let’s look at what’s specifically at issue for today’s discussion.
In Uptown, the existing Uptown Planners is being challenged by a group called Vibrant Uptown, people who are “super enthused at the prospect of more diverse voices representing the Uptown neighborhood” — as their supporters’ public comments repeat verbatim.
All along, the Planning Department as an appendage of the mayor, has protested that it won’t put its thumb on the scale, that it would fairly and equitably present data related to each group and leave it strictly up to the City Council to decide.
Here are some of the many distortions in staff’s report for today’s meeting:
• Vibrant Uptown would have quotas requiring an equal number of renters and property owners for our six neighborhoods, each of different populations and demographics and percentages of renters to owners, plus reserve a third of all seats for businesses and organizations.
• The income of 83% of reported Vibrant Uptown members already exceeds the income of two-thirds of the Uptown population, compared to only 21% of the incumbent Uptown Planners members.
• A full page devoted to Race and Ethnicity and Vibrant Uptown’s supposed superiority in this category, the data actually reveals that Uptown Planners is 14% non-white and Vibrant Uptown only 8% non-white.
• Similarly, the analysis of Household Income reveals Uptown Planners has 21% low, 57% medium and 21% high incomes, while Vibrant Uptown has 8% low, 8% medium and 83% high incomes.
• Regarding Age, they work from “the majority of the population” — which includes those under eighteen and thus skews the data toward that end. But even then, 21% of Uptown Planners members are age 60-69 compared to 25% of Vibrant Uptown members.
The worst lie comes at the end, where the staff concludes that Vibrant Uptown would be preferable for having a standing committee for community engagement, blatantly ignoring that Uptown Planners has had one for years, our Operations and Outreach Committee.
And of course, any appointed CPG would need to hold elections — supposedly within ninety days, but that still hasn’t been determined. So all the appointed groups information will fly out the window once those results are tallied.
Uptown Planners has always worked together to find the points of agreement needed to speak as one for the six neighborhoods in Uptown. By intentionally structuring themselves by neighborhood and business interests, Vibrant Uptown will Balkanize and weaken the effectiveness of Uptown’s CPG — a perhaps not unintended consequence.
And from what I understand, these same concerns regarding fuzzy numbers and cherry-picked conclusions also plague the analysis of the two La Jolla CPG groups to identical effect.
As in every shell game, the point is to keep people guessing: to believe in their ability to win at a game which specifically preys on their good faith efforts to follow rules that aren’t real enforced by those who are self-dealing.
While the fix may be in for today, I urge everyone to keep following the bouncing ball as it rolls to the full City Council for consideration, currently set for May 14.
Fawning over any diversity of a self-appointed group of people that is basically just an election and bylaws committee for a CPG that doesn’t exist yet, is just well… stupid.
The currently elected Uptown planners should seek candidacy with both groups.
Hi kh. That’s the rub: they have run for election to Uptown Planners — and soundly defeated. That’s why they need the city to carry their water.
I did not read the new bylaws proposed by either group. Did existing Uptown CPG not create any sort of demographic or neighborhood-based seats? That seems like an oversight considering the new CP 600-24.
Sounds like you will be running for a seat, and probably winning, under new bylaws.
Sorry for the timesuck of complying with the recognition process with nothing to show for it. I know full well what that all entailed.
In fact our bylaws amendment and application process was all done in plain view, per the Brown Act. It would have been plainly visible to any completing groups. Was there any transparency with Vibrant Uptown? Doesn’t sound like it if nobody even knows who the individuals are.
I checked their website and they do have that stuff posted, but I would be surprised if it was prior to January. Also 4 of their 12 members would not make it on their own board due to demographics.
Exactly, kh. We’re through the Looking-Glass now: “No, no! The adventures first…Explanations take such a dreadful time.”
One of the first things I have noticed about Vibrant Uptown is that they do not identify any of their members or leadership. One of the problems with some community planning groups is that they are very reluctant to share with the public their leadership, their composition or their activities. While VU does identify a couple of initiatives they support, they are silent on their members and leaders. I find that to be more than a little suspicious. Who are your members, and who are you going to appoint for the initial pre-election board?
I’m also cognizant of the fact that one of the initiatives they support is the Alvarez bill to limit the power of the Coastal Commission’s actions in the Coastal Zone. Just what does this have to do with Uptown? No part of Uptown is in the Coastal Zone. In my years on the Peninsula Community Planning board we only became involved in another planning group’s jurisdiction when it affected us – I’m talking about the Midway plan, height limit changes and Midway Rising. We only became involved because of the tremendous adverse impacts that the Midway changes would have on residents of the Peninsula. We were not in the habit of supporting initiatives that did not impact us directly.
I find this all very troubling.
Agreed, Paul. When I once went to the Mission Valley Planning Group, to voice opposition to Cerullo’s “Dead Sea World,” it was as an individual and exactly because it would impact traffic to and from Uptown. But they were very concerned that anyone from Uptown Planners was there at all, and demanded to know if we had held or would hold a vote on the project — for exactly the reasons you mention. But now it’s going to be a free-for-all. Congrats, LaCava!
Mat,
Soundly defeated by 235 voters. Most of them were likely MH residents. Don’t mean to throw MH under the bus but I do think the district-based approach VU proposes works better.
If VU can achieve average voter turnout wouldn’t that be a victory for Uptown?
Uh, Zack: you do realize that’s 235 more voters than ever approved VU, don’t you? Not quite the flex you groupthink it is. And unless there’s an option on the ballot for voters to approve or reject VU to represent them, then I doubt you’re going to get anywhere near “average turnout.”
Mat,
Happy to see you on here. As usual, you’re bringing a positive, optimistic attitude to the conversation.
I think VU will be able to achieve higher average turnout than the current group. Of course, I could be wrong but I’m optimistic.
It was a unanimous decision by the committee to recommend them. Are they all corrupt? Are the VU folks receiving money from developers? Is there a conspiracy or did your side just lose? It happens!
You said it, not me. Why not let the voters decide who they want?
Mat,
VU will have elections within 90 days of being approved by City council. The members will run and ultimately be chosen by voters.
The Uptown Planners members can run as well in the VU elections
Zack – this must be you on the Circulate San Diego website in a Q & A:
“… Zack DeFazio-Farrell a few questions…
Tell us a little bit about yourself.
I am a born and bred San Diegan and law student interested in modernizing San Diego’s land use and transportation policies to make this city as affordable and economically dynamic as possible. I am also interested in international trade and investment, and conduct research for a law firm about binational business with Mexico.
How did you become interested in Circulate San Diego?
I became interested in Circulate San Diego through their advocacy and policy work.
Frank,
You got me dead to rights. I did a summer internship there last summer. Good people, small outfit; not a developer-run conspiracy like they’ve been portrayed on this website.
It’s OK to have differences of opinion about this stuff. I mean we all do care about San Diego right?
BTW, can you allow more of my posts through? Seems like you’re filtering some of them out and I don’t think it’s particularly fair
Zack, cares about Zack, not San Diego and definitely not San Diegans.
Do tell, did you run for a seat on Uptown Planners and not win? Please explain.
Kh,
Not sure if you are talking to me but to answer your question I did not
As a former board member of Uptown Planners and a founding member of Vibrant Uptown, I want to correct the blatant inaccuracies in this post. The Vibrant Uptown group is a group of citizens who got together to make a change for the better in the Uptown community. The CPG application is just PART of our mission. Our proposed CPG, Uptown Community Planning Group, if selected, allows for designated seats from each of the 6 communities in Uptown. There would be both a renter and an owner seat VOTED on by each community (ie. no at large voting). There are also designated business seats and a non-profit seat.Vibrant Uptown supported all 4 amendments proposed by City staff: Election within 90 days of new CPG recognition; Virtual meeting participation by board members to increase board membership diversity:
14 day annual report submission deadline; CPG operating procedure amendment approval process. So, ANYONE can run again. When applications were due to the city, you had to specify a “potential board”, so yes, there are members of Vibrant Uptown who would not make the demographics as outlined. I for one am not running for a new CPG board seat. Also, I am in the 60-69 age range and have since retired (so also do not have the income I reported in December 2023 when the application was submitted). The “distortions” mentioned by Mat Wahlstom are meaningless because an election has to be held within 90 days under the new structure. The old CPG will remain in place until that time. Mat also failed to mention that in the March 2023 election, only 235 votes were cast in a population of ~50,000. Uptown Community Planning Group plans to initiate both online and in person voting as we don’t think 235 is exactly representative of the community. It was the STRUCTURE of Vibrant Uptown’s CPG proposal that was the deciding factor for the City Council’s Land Use and Housing Committee held today.
That is all a feel good smokescreen for a group of people who want to be in bed with the city. CPGs have always been composed of people who ran for a seat. They have always been democratically elected, anyone who says otherwise is lying. Getting people interested enough to run has always been the problem. And now you really think you will be able to have a duly elected board full of these specific members? It is patently ridiculous. This is nothing more than a maneuver by the mayor and you people are complicit.
Anybody can still run for seats, the difference is that one neighborhood won’t have the ability to control the board and why is that not a good thing? Mission Hills people can vote for their neighborhood, Middletown can vote for candidates in their neighborhood, etc. The city council used to also be voting at large and when that wasn’t working, districts were developed. Plus with an online voting option, even more people can get involved. Here’s a great article on why at large voting is a form of voter discrimination. https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/396-district-vs-at-large-elections-explained/
Sounds wonderful but does not work well.
But, if that is all you want, have the original group change to this system. If they are unwilling now. well then run for election, get on the board and then work for that change. That is how it has always worked.
Seriously, you are going to hold several elections in 6 different areas to “elect” a “more representative” board? that’s not going to work well and you’ll have lots of organizing to make sure voters are segregated into the communities you would like to rope off.
The fact that 235 voters turned out isn’t a big deal. Planning groups have various turnouts depending on who’s running and if there are major issues in the area.
You are asking to have people from 6 communities show up to vote for only 2 people, of which one seat probably is not in the best interest of the voter (homeowners or renters). Surely the populations of each of the 6 communities are unequal, meaning representation will be unequal. How many people live in “Medical Center”?
Seriously YES! Uptown Planners March 2024 election had a TOTAL of 7 hours for in person voting – 2 hours on a Saturday and 4 hours the night of the election (4-7). The application submitted by Vibrant Uptown has a robust election plan in place, including online voting and voting at multiple locations. At large voting is voter discrimination plain and simple.
My math is wrong – total of 5 hours of voting (not 7).
Gail, if there were only 235 votes, surely that would’ve been easy to win a seat. Were you ever on the ballot? New members and new ideas help keep these groups healthy. 235 isn’t much but it’s infinitely more than the zero votes the member of VU have received.
I was a four year board member on Uptown Planners and decided not to run again because of the dysfunction I experienced as a board member. I’m not sure what votes you are discussing in your post, as an election will be held in 90 days if the Uptown Community Planning Group is selected by city council.
The city wants to make changes in the Uptown community plan to suit their development desires. They know the old group won’t go along but what do you want to bet the new group does?
Of course they will — that’s been the point all along. Everything I wrote in this post exposes the hypocrisy and complicity of everyone involved. And simply repeating I’m wrong without actually addressing any of facts just further reveals them as incapable of honest engagement.
Aesop got it right: “Any excuse will serve a tyrant.” That tyrant is our mayor, and anyone who wants to be someone can’t slobber up his ring fast enough.